Robust chromatin state annotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the goal of mapping genomic activity, international projects have recently measured epigenetic activity in hundreds of cell and tissue types. Chromatin state annotations produced by segmentation and genome annotation (SAGA) methods have emerged as the predominant way to summarize these epigenomic data sets in order to annotate the genome. These chromatin state annotations are essential for many genomic tasks, including identifying active regulatory elements and interpreting disease-associated genetic variation. However, despite the widespread applications of SAGA methods, no principled approach exists to evaluate the statistical significance of chromatin state assignments. Here, we propose the first method for assigning calibrated confidence scores to chromatin state annotations. Toward this goal, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of the reproducibility of the two most widely used existing SAGA methods, ChromHMM and Segway. We found that their predictions are frequently irreproducible. For example, when applying the same SAGA method on two sets of experimental replicates, 27%–69% of predicted enhancers fail to replicate. This suggests that a substantial fraction of predicted elements in existing chromatin state annotations cannot be relied upon. To remedy this problem, we introduce SAGAconf, a method for assigning a measure of confidence ( r -value) to chromatin state annotations. SAGAconf works with any SAGA method and assigns an r -value to each genomic bin of a chromatin state annotation that represents the probability that the label of this bin will be reproduced in a replicated experiment. Thus, SAGAconf allows a researcher to select only the reliable predictions from a chromatin annotation for use in downstream analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".